Lady Eldridge,
Thank you for your valid and relevant topical question.
This is an issue that I, like many others, have given much thought to. It is hard not to, is it not, given the predictable amount of press-coverage that this 'adoption' has been awarded.
No matter where one's eyes fall within your local grocers, supermarket or friendly newspaper shop, images of Madonna, usually on her way to the gym, or a dark-skinned swaddling child shine from every shelf.
In response to your question, short, I would have to say that I find Madonna's attitude as shallow, reprehensible and thoroughly self-engrossed as I do the majority of the actions of modern-day celebrities.
Like many seemingly altruistic acts, her actions are actually premised upon the vain and selfish desire to 'do something worthwhile'. This translates as massaging one's ego/lifting yourself in the esteem of others/making yourself seem considerate and therefore more popular and loved. it is to do with the giver and not the receiver. Thus is in reality no act of giving, love or charity but an action premeditated to receive and bring self-benefit.
I was particularly horrified to catch an article in one 'Heat' magazine yesterday. Horrified firstly because, shamefully, I was reading the thing. Reading these papers may appear a harmless and entertaining past-time. Do not be so quickly fooled, Lady Eldridge. By reading the abhorrent pages, even in private, you are in fact promulgating their publication and exposing yourself to the insidious phoniness of their philosophy.
My horror followed quickly on the heels of merely holding the rank thing as my eyes alighted on the title of one particular article regarding the Madonna-adoption issue. The article perfectly encapsulates the vile attitude of celebrities that Madonna's recent actions reflect.
The article was titled along the lines of "Shock Report: Madonna a FOLLOWER of fashion in the latest celebrity adoption trend!"
Said magazine was disappointed to reveal to viewers that Madonna had recently lost her crown as setter of celebrity chic by following the 'well-established' trend of 'poor, African child adoptions'. - apparently a road well-trodden by the likes of Ewan McGregor, Michelle Pfeiffer and the Queen of Brown Babies, Angelina Jolie.
Excuse me whilst I expunge my lungs of the bile repeating this accursed name has caused me.
..........................................................
The recent interview with Ms Jolie was reported in Heat in which interview Ms Jolie remarked "It's a very special thing. There's something about travelling somewhere and finding your family." She continues..
"But we're looking at different countries. It's going to be the balance of what would be the best for Mad and for Z right now. It's, you know, another boy, another girl, which country, which race would fit best with the kids?"
I cannot be alone in finding the process by which Ms Jolie 'finds' her children to be in every way akin to the collecting of soft-furnishings for your newly painted living room.
These are CHILDREN, not mohair cushions. Who 'collects' children cultural complements and a pride in a holistic and eclectic variety. Am i alone in interpreting 'which race' as a rather thinly-veiled reference to skin-tone. How else can this be interpreted? You can bet your bottom dollar it won't be porr white South African kid. it doesn't have the requisite 'badge of brownness' to effect the desired look.
travelling round the world, looking for well-chosen items sounds to me very much the activity of gap -year students collecting antiquities from Indian Emporiums or Thai market. We're talking Buddha-heads, Shiva statutes. I do this in lining my mantelpiece. But vases and statues don't' grow up to appreciate the basis of their mother's love is the kudos earned from your presence in her household.
I fear I may have to extend the offer of the Dulux swatches to Ms Jolie also for it will surely help her in identifying exactly the correct shade of brown or yellow to harmonise well with her current babies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I agree that Jolie's statement is somewhat disturbing.
Re-Madonna it's not a bad thing to have brought the attention of the world to the plight of Malawi's strett children. Also the family of "baby david" are apparently very happy with the adoption. I guess that's all that really matters isn't it??
The real issue is why there are so many poor orphans in Malawi or wherever in the first place and how we've let things come to such a bizarre state of affairs whereby children are getting transported around the world just to find a stable home.
Finally - I am the only one who keeps thinking of the ROyal Family TV show every time I read the phrase "baby David"?
Over and out
Z x
I'm not sure all the family are happy about it actually. I think his uncle has said they want to keep him near his family - and who wouldn't?
I went to visit Lilongwe in Malawi and would be the last person to deny a baby the chance of a better life. But it seems to me Madonna has taken a fancy for a particular little boy - who isn't an orphan, he has a family and a father - why can't she just give them financial support instead of taking him away from him family - assuming that he will be happier away from his culture, family and background living in the spotlight in the western world.
Why did she not adopt and orphan? There are hundreds of thousands of orphans in Malawi, homeless, working on the streets, or worse, mistreated by extended family or head of a household at the age of 7 looking after their brothers and sisters.
Or why not just give a few million pounds to the village he comes from, set up a school, give them access to clean water and sanitation, fund a hospital, teach the community skills to grow food and send in a load of teaching equipment, toys etc and make his home more stable by improving the community he lives in.
My understanding was that this child was in an orphanage where his father had placed him after the mother's death.
I guess we'll never know the truth on any of it in terms of how the family feels.
I also understand that she has made donations but agree any donation could never be enough and we as a soceity have to do more to elivate poverty in these places.
I also agree it's a weird thing to have done to go an adopt this child, but I don't think Madonna deserves this condemnation when we really haven't any information about the true details and background.
Back to the reality of work i'm afraid ..
Dear Natalie
What do you think of the nuclear proliferation debate re North Korea and Iran?
Hello - if you take the seven sins... do you think celebrity would be the overarching 8th sin, which combines all the first 7?
From wiki...
Lust (undesired love) vs Chastity (purity)
Gluttony (overindulgence) vs Moderation (self-restraint)
Greed (avarice) vs Generosity (vigilance)
Sloth (laziness) vs Zeal (integrity)
Wrath (anger) vs Meekness (composure)
Envy (jealousy) vs Charity (giving)
Pride (vanity) vs Humility (humbleness)
I too think of 'Baybee Dayvid' Zarrine!
I don't agree though that raising the profile of Malawian people negates the insult to the country this adoption causes (we can't look after our kids, come and buy them you better Western folks) or the message that it sends out the money equates to better life/that the poor kid will necessarily have a better life being with Madonna.
I would have thought he will be in torment as it grows up watching his brothers and sisters across the world in poverty and being racked with guilt on his lot compared to theirs. He will be hounded by the press for the rest of his life and live in a goldfish bowl.
Post a Comment